This is a useful case for reviewing some of the issues you need to consider when engaging on a redundancy procedure in its various forms. In this particular case, the Claimant and a colleague were made redundant and their roles were replaced by one amalgamated wider role. Both men were interviewed for the new role but despite the fact that the Claimant met the new job description and the colleague did not, the colleague was given the job. The Claimant's argument was based on the case of Williams v Compair Maxam [1982] IRLR 83. Williams sets out principles of good industrial relations to be observed in redundancy cases where the employees are represented by an independent union recognised by the employer. The EAT when outlining these principles was clear that they should not be taken as immutable or principals of law. Nonetheless, the principals have long been used as a benchmark for managing redundancy situations. They read as follow: "1. The employer will seek to give as much warning as possible of impending redundancies so as to enable the union and employees who may be affected to take early steps to inform themselves of the relevant facts, consider possible alternative solutions and, if necessary, find alternative employment in the undertaking or elsewhere. 2. The employer will consult the union as to the best means by which the desired management result can be achieved fairly and with as little hardship to the employees as possible. In particular, the employer will seek to agree with the union the criteria to be applied in selecting the employees to be made redundant. When a selection has been made, the employer will consider with the union whether the selection has been made in accordance with those criteria. 3. Whether or not an agreement as to the criteria to be adopted has been agreed with the union, the employer will seek to establish criteria for selection which so far as possible do not depend solely upon the opinion of the person making the selection but can be objectively checked against such things as attendance record, efficiency at the job, experience, or length of service. 4. The employer will seek to ensure that the selection is made fairly in accordance with these criteria and will consider any representations the union may make as to such selection. 5. The employer will seek to see whether instead of dismissing an employee he could offer him alternative employment." The Claimant tried to argue that these principles were applicable to the instant situation, in particular the 3rd and 4th. He argued that only he met the job specification. If therefore the selection had been fairly made in accordance with the agreed criteria, the Respondent would have excluded the person who was appointed and the appointment of the Claimant would have been inevitable. The EAT disagreed, and drew a distinction where, as here, redundancy arises in consequence of a re-organisation and there are new, different, roles to be filled. The EAT said: "The criteria set out in Williams did not seek to address the process by which such roles were to be filled, and that was a very different scenario requiring different considerations. Where an employer has to decide which employees from a pool of existing employees are to be made redundant, the criteria will reflect a known job, performed by known employees over a period. Where, however, an employer has to appoint to new roles after a re-organisation, the employer's decision must of necessity be forward-looking. It is likely to centre upon an assessment of the ability of the individual to perform in the new role. Thus, for example, whereas Williams type selection will involve consultation and meeting, appointment to a new role is likely to involve, as it did here, something much more like an interview process. These considerations may well apply with particular force where the new role is at a high level and where it involves promotion." In cases of this type, the only requirement of the Tribunal is to apply section 98(4) of the 1996 Act. No further proposition of law is required. A Tribunal is entitled to consider, as part of its deliberations, how far an interview process was objective; but it should keep carefully in mind that an employer's assessment of which candidate will best perform in a new role is likely to involve a substantial element of judgment. A Tribunal is entitled to take into account how far the employer established and followed through procedures when making an appointment, and whether they were fair. A Tribunal is entitled, and no doubt will, consider as part of its deliberations whether an appointment was made capriciously, or out of favouritism or on personal grounds. If it concludes that an appointment was made in that way, it is entitled to reflect that conclusion in its finding under section 98(4). And so the message is clear. In standard redundancy situations stick with the guiding principles of Williams, but when a redundancy situation leads to competition for a new role, then fairness under section 98(4) is the guide. http://www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/Public/Upload/10_0314fhSBLA.doc